Pugh composure,boggles pops faithfulness

Perhaps if the original judge got justice before this case whnt to appeal, it would have given the judges hearing the appeal something to think about: their lives and those of their families.

Given that judges serve for life and that it is dificult to impeach them, what is the fastest and easiest way to remove a judge?

What if the protests take the form of punishment? I don’t grant to you that there is anything wrong with that as long as:

it is legal. Period.

This whole concept of imperial judiciary, the touch-me-not judiciary, who bristle at the slightest criticism of their robed utterings, is not consistent with the rule of law.

In the rule of law, the law rules, not the person of the judge. So, if a legal means exists that permits a person to defeat a judge’s ruling:

like appeal,

or impeachment,

political action,

or taking the judge’s ruling and applying it to the judge personally,

and it’s all legal,

so what if it is punishment?

The people are supposed to run this government, not the government the people. Let’s remember that.

And any judge who can’t operate in that realm: get a different job. It’s not about you.

My concern is using the law to punish Souter. Perhaps “intimidation” was the wrong word to use in that sense. When appointed for life, judges are held accountable only by their consciences. As long as they don’t get involved in bribery or other turpitudeness activities, they’re clear to rule according to their own lights.

Do people have a right to protest decisions like Kelo? Absolutely. My fear is that such protests take the form of punishment.

We are obviously NOT on the same wavelength, here. I like your blog, and I tend to agree with and respect most of your views, so I want to make an effort to “bridge the gap.”

I agree that TRULY intimidating judges with whom you disagree - by, for example, threatening their wives and children, or their home, or damaging or threatening to damage their personal property, or threatening or making and implied threat to their person. BAD JUJU.

I think YOU would agree that PROTESTING the decisions of a judge you disagree with is PRECISELY what the Founding Fathers were seeking to protect when they wrote the First Amendment.

So, where does one cross the line between “intimidation” and “protest”?? IMNSHO, it is inherent in the definitions of “intimidation” and “threat.” ALthough neither REQUIRE illegality, there is certainly a sense, particularly in the definition of “threat” of violence or illegality.

If a Congressman votes for legislation requiring a 50 yard “protest free” zone around all abortion clinics, is it proper to picket their house? If not, why not? If a judge sentences a convicted child molester to probation, would you consider it “improper intimidation” to write a letter to the State Corrections Board suggesting that the miscreant serve his probation in the Judge’s neighborhood? Again, why?

Clement may be a nutjob - but he’s a clever nutjob. He is doing NOTHING more sinister than an irate parent writing a letter to the Corrections Board suggesting that, if a judge is going to release a pedophile on the community, it should be in the JUDGE’s community. Such protest is neither “intimidation,” nor is it improper.

Frankly, PARTICULARLY in the case of judges, who do not have to face the ballot box, I’d like to see a lot MORE of such protest. They SHOULD get a feel for what their judicial idiocy sometimes inflicts on the rest of us.

Thanks for your explanatory note. I heard the instigator of the “Lost Liberty Hotel” plan was a libertarian, and I’m not surprised he is very strongly anti-big-government.

I agree that unlawful intimidation of judges is wrong. But this is not unlawful intimidation. Based on Souter’s vote on Kelo, this kind of action is now lawful. It is very, very distasteful, but it is no more so for Souter than it was for the residents of New London, some of whom have lived in their (now-condemned) homes for considerably longer than the eminent Justice has lived in his.

It is sad that some judges must be hoist on their own legalistic petards before they will read the law as it is written, and but aside their policy preferences for those of the duly elected legislative bodies — but if that is what must be done, so be it.

I for one will stay at the Lost Liberty Hotel when it is built, and I will toast the man who bulids it.

My apologies.

No, Rick, it is you who have obviously lost the argument.

This is not a case of intimidation. It is a case of protest.

You may target a government official for protest. You can even be clever about it. I can see nothing but justice here in this instance. Using the very same ruling which devastates others in our society to apply to the person who put pen to paper to see it happen is not revenge: it is the very definition of justice.

You reap what you sow. That’s just.

And you projecting your strawman “revenge” argument on others doesn’t wash. It doesn’t matter what our motives are: it is our argument that is important.

I hate to see a guy floundering on his own blog, but simply being stubborn and impugning the motives of those whose arguments are better than yours is not argument.

Slowly, and one more time, with feeling:

This is an instance of giving someone the full effect of what they wreak on someone else. It is clever and has the possibility of being quite effective.

It is not illegal. The only thing one can say is that the judge might not like it. Since one does whether a judge personally like something mean it is prohibited or wrong (stop laughing). At least, it shouldn’t mean that.

No, this is actually a perfect response to a wrong decision. It may actually work, but even if it doesn’t, it is just.

You get what you sow.